Case law

Patterson v. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Burns

670 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 5, 2009

The Seventh Circuit has further held that the law has been clearly established for decades and that a defendant officer is not entitled to qualified immunity in such situations. See Newsome v. … Patterson has established a genuine factual dispute as to whether defendant Burns committed such a violation and whether Sergeant Burns is entitled to qualified immunity.

Logestan v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance

626 N.E.2d 829 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1993

Nor can we conclude that the statutory provisions and administrative rules enacted to regulate boiler inspections demonstrate “clearly the intention of the Legislature” to recognize special inspectors as instrumentalities … facts established through his testimony and the express disclaimer in Hartford’s policy.

Spier Ex Rel. Spier v. City of Plymouth

593 N.E.2d 1255 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1992

May the city establish that it is immune from liability upon a showing that an act of a third person was a proximate cause of Jeffrey’s injury without regard to whether an act of the city was also a proximate cause of the … Spiers do not challenge the adequacy of the statement to qualify as an affidavit.

Jasmine McNeil Ind. and on behalf of Ath'Dara McNeil Chyna Brown Imoni Brown v. Anonymous Hospital

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2023

By its very terms, the immunity under subsection (a) is qualified by two exceptions. … The Court held that the Michigan statute “clearly and unambiguously provides immunity to persons who file a child abuse report in good faith.” Id.

Foster v. Pearcy

376 N.E.2d 1205 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1978

Conversely, where the speaker can claim only a qualified privilege, further inquiry can be made after the establishment of the privilege to determine whether the speaker has abused his privilege: Once the existence of the … , while inferior officers would be limited to a qualified immunity.

Larson v. Cantrell

974 F. Supp. 1211 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 11, 1997

Judge Cantrell’s second major argument is that she is entitled to qualified immunity, Under that doctrine, government officials enjoy immunity from damages liability unless their conduct “violate [s] clearly established statutory … Next, Judge Cantrell argues for qualified immunity position-by-position.

Kirk v. City of Kokomo

772 F. Supp. 2d 983 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 17, 2011

Ultimately, the court resolved the search issue on qualified immunity, holding that it was not clearly established that searching the officer’s desk even without reasonable suspicion would violate the Fourth Amendment. … Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to show that their right to be free of such office searches was clearly established at the time of the searches, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Goldberg v. Junion

208 F. Supp. 3d 977 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 23, 2016

Defendants contend summary judgment in their favor is required because they are entitled to qualified immunity. A. Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity is a “powerful shield,” Gregorich v. … This right was clearly established by the Seventh Circuit in Berkowitz in 1991, and then reaffirmed in Sparing in 2001, long before this incident took place in 2013.

Graham v. Carter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 12, 2021

The defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were not clearly unconstitutional under clearly established law. ECF 61 at 19-21. However, this argument fails as to Sgt. … Zimmerman cannot avoid trial on qualified immunity grounds.

Paul Stieler Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Evansville

2 N.E.3d 1269 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 11, 2014

Thus, the two distinguishing characteristics upon which the Amending Ordinance establishes different classes for unequal treatment are: (1) whether the establishment is floating or land-based and (2) whether the establishment … The Evansville City Council clearly distinguished riverboat casinos from land-based bars and clubs, and we do not fault these classifications.

Howard v. Ealing

876 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 10, 2012

“[Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Claims of qualified immunity involve two inquiries: (1) whether the official violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Id.

Indiana Department of Financial Institutions v. Worthington Bancshares, Inc.

728 N.E.2d 899 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 23, 2000

; 4) establishment of reasonable executive compensation; 5) increase of total capital by one million dollars within ninety days; 6) establishment of specified capital ratios; 7) establishment of an operating budget; 8) charge-off … Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3. . • DFI is clearly immune under I.C. §§ 34-13-3-3(5) and (6). Thus, we need not address DFI’s claims of immunity under I.C. §§ 34-13-3-3(7) and (10).

McConnell v. McKillip

573 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 30, 2008

and the officers’ conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) if a violation could be established on a favorable view of the facts, whether the right was clearly established. … Here, there should be no serious dispute that the rights McConnell claims were violated were clearly established.

Crawford v. Indiana Department of Correction

937 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 15, 1996

The defendant state officials were, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1346, 1352 ; see also Gorman v. … Nov. 22, 1995) (holding it was not “clearly established” that the ADA applied to state prisons in July, 1994). There is a lack of authority directly contradicting Torcasio .

Hupp v. Hill

576 N.E.2d 1320 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1991

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity under § 1983, there must be a showing that the defendant violated a clearly established right: "in the light of pre-existing law, the unlawfulness must be apparent." Anderson v. … Without an allegation of activity sufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion, there can be no violation of clearly established rights. 8 .

Moore v. Calumet Township of Lake County

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 21, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Martin, 614 F.3d 707, 712 (7th Cir. 2010) (finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that a government employee in the plaintiff’s position could not be fired

Ebeyer v. Rodriguez

909 F. Supp. 2d 1049 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 15, 2012

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity, it is Mr.

Lessley v. CITY OF MADISON, IND.

654 F. Supp. 2d 877 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 21, 2009

Royce is not entitled to qualified immunity for any of the surviving search claims. The test of whether a right is clearly established is objective. … For purposes of qualified immunity, the *902 district court decision in Gray does not clearly establish law, of course. See Anderson v.

HARRISON v. KNIGHT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 15, 2021

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002) (denying qualified immunity because handcuffing prisoner to hitching post for hours in summer sun violated clearly established law).

Foxworthy v. Buetow

492 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 22, 2007

Qualified Immunity WCCD claims that it is entitled to qualified immunity on Foxworthy’s First Amendment retaliation claim. … is clearly established.”